20 Ways To Improve
D&O

Download this FREE REPORT from
IRMI to learn the top 20 ways to address basic directors and officers (D&O)
coverage considerations, defense provisions, exclusions, excess coverage, and
coordination with other insurance.

My Reinsurer Is in Runoff. What Do I Do Now?

Insurance companies purchase reinsurance protection for many reasons. But no matter the reason for buying reinsurance, ceding insurers expect their reinsurers to pay when called on to reimburse the ceding insurer's losses. In an active trading relationship, reinsurers are often described as "partners" of their ceding insurers in the risk assumptions undertaken based on the policies issued by the ceding insurers to their policyholders. Both the ceding insurer and the reinsurer share in the ups and downs of the assumed risks, most particularly in a proportional or quota share relationship.

When a reinsurer goes into runoff, however, that feeling of partnership often
fades away. The business mindset of a company frequently changes when it is
no longer actively trading. The goals in runoff are different than the goals
of a company with active business relationships. Unfortunately for ceding insurers,
reinsurance recoverables often become more difficult to collect when their reinsurance
company goes into runoff.

With the expansion of runoff over the past several years, ceding insurers
are attempting to address through the contract drafting process the difficulties
of dealing with a reinsurer in runoff. This commentary will briefly explore
this new trend of special clauses in reinsurance contracts aimed at issues that
arise when a ceding insurer's reinsurer goes into runoff.

Runoff Reinsurers

A reinsurer goes into runoff when it stops actively trading and ends its
underwriting operations. In other words, a runoff reinsurer stops assuming new
risks from its ceding insurers and concentrates instead on minimizing its payouts
on its existing reinsurance contracts. A runoff may take the form of a court-ordered
receivership proceeding (liquidation, rehabilitation, or conservation), a supervised
termination of active underwriting by the local regulator, an informal supervision
by the local regulator, or merely a business decision to end active underwriting
and place all existing contracts into a runoff mode.

A reinsurer in runoff may keep its staff (typically claims, management, and
accounting) and manage its own runoff, or it may hire a professional runoff
administrator to handle the business. Sometimes, the entire business will be
sold to a company that specializes in buying companies or books of business
in runoff.

But when a reinsurance company goes into runoff, the reinsurance relationship
between the ceding insurer and the reinsurer does not end. To the contrary,
the reinsurer still owes to the ceding insurer a contractual duty to perform
under the reinsurance contract. Most importantly, the reinsurer's contractual
duty includes paying its ceding insurer's losses as they come due under the
reinsurance contract.

Even in a receivership, the insolvent reinsurer owes its ceding insurer the
duty to perform under the reinsurance contract. Unfortunately for the ceding
insurer, however, an insolvent reinsurer will likely be unable to pay 100 percent
of its contractual obligations under the reinsurance contract, and it may take
many years for its claim to be adjudicated and allowed. Nevertheless, the ceding
insurer should file a claim and hope for the best.

Collecting from a Reinsurer in Runoff

When a trade creditor goes into insolvency or ceases doing business, its
counterparty often finds it difficult to obtain outstanding payments. Reinsurance
is no different. When a ceding insurer's reinsurer goes into runoff, the ceding
insurer may find that its reinsurance billings are not paid quite as quickly
as they had been paid before. The business incentives to pay reinsurance recoverables
timely have less importance when the reinsurer is in runoff and is seeking to
maximize its remaining assets for distribution to its shareholders as an exit
strategy.

A number of ceding insurers have experienced an increased lag in collection
time from runoff reinsurers. Often this lag is accompanied by multiple questions
about the billing, requests for documentation on the underlying losses, and
lengthy and detailed audit examinations and inquiries. Delays in payments may
occur while the ceding company responds to the runoff reinsurer's requests and
while the runoff reinsurer examines the responses and reviews the supporting
documents provided. These delays and other behaviors by some runoff reinsurers
have frustrated some ceding insurers.

Using Contract Wording To Address Runoff Reinsurers

To address these and other concerns that arise when reinsurers go into runoff,
some ceding insurers have begun to modify their reinsurance contracts by adding
provisions directly addressing their reinsurer's status in runoff. By using
these anticipatory clauses, ceding insurers are attempting to avoid or mitigate
some of the issues discussed above.

For example, some cedents have limited the right of a reinsurer in runoff
to deny payment of a claim. Below is an example of a special clause addressing
a runoff reinsurer's right to deny payment:

A runoff subscribing Reinsurer will not have the right to deny payment of
a claim if the sum of the percentage shares of active subscribing Reinsurers
that have paid the claim exceed 50 percent of the sum of the percentage
of shares of all active subscribing Reinsurers. However, this provision
will not apply if such runoff subscribing Reinsurer has filed a notice requesting
arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Article, or appointed an
arbitrator following receipt of such notice from the Company, regarding
such claim. "Active subscribing Reinsurer" as used herein will mean a subscribing
Reinsurer that is not a runoff subscribing Reinsurer as of the due date
of the claim.

This example precludes a reinsurer in runoff from denying payment of a claim
where the majority of all the other reinsurers have paid the same claim. To
soften the blow of what might be viewed as a harsh result, the clause excludes
those claims that the runoff reinsurer has sought to arbitrate. Thus, if the
claim is in dispute, and a proceeding has been commenced, the clause will not
apply. But if the runoff reinsurer is merely being recalcitrant, then it cannot
deny the claim if the majority of the other reinsurers have paid. Of course,
to enforce this clause, the ceding insurer will likely have to commence its
own arbitration.

Other ceding insurers have been more aggressive and have developed clauses
that address a number of issues with runoff reinsurers. For example, if the
reinsurer goes into runoff, the ceding insurer may require that runoff reinsurer
to enter into a commutation agreement.

In the event a Subscribing Reinsurer is a Runoff Subscribing Reinsurer or
meets one or more of the conditions set forth under paragraph B of the Commencement
and Termination Article, the Company may require commutation of that portion
of any excess loss hereunder represented by any outstanding claim or claims,
including any related loss adjustment expense. "Outstanding claim or claims"
shall be defined as known or unknown claims, including any billed yet unpaid
claims.

This clause helps the ceding insurer avoid having to deal with a runoff reinsurer
over the long haul of the reinsurance agreement by requiring an early commutation
if it makes economic sense to the ceding insurer. In short-tail lines, it will
be easier to commute than in long-tail lines. The ceding insurer will then have
to weigh the burden of dealing with a runoff reinsurer against the unforeseen
development that might occur on the book for which it will no longer have reinsurance
after the commutation.

Where the reinsurance agreement requires the reinsurer to fund outstanding
losses, loss adjustment expenses, and incurred but not reported (IBNR) losses,
the runoff reinsurer clause might authorize the ceding insurer to go to court
to obtain an injunction to compel the runoff reinsurer to comply with its funding
obligations even if there is an arbitration clause for most disputes.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Arbitration Article, if a Runoff Subscribing
Insurer fails to fund its share of the Company's ceded outstanding loss
and loss adjustment expense reserves (including incurred but not reported
loss reserves) under this Contract (the "funding obligation") as set forth
above, Company retains its right to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction
for equitable or interim relief.

Arbitration clauses may be modified in any reasonable way to suit the needs
of the parties. Carve-outs for certain types of issues, often for claims of
fraud in the inducement, have been seen in the last few years. The example above
carves out the funding obligations of the reinsurer from the arbitration clause
for the purpose of allowing the ceding insurer to go to court to obtain an interim
order or other equitable relief compelling the runoff reinsurer to comply with
its funding obligations, including IBNR losses, pending resolution of any dispute.
This avoids the necessity to go to an arbitration panel that might not feel
compelled to make the reinsurer fund until the arbitration panel renders an
award in the arbitration. Lack of security for the ultimate obligations allegedly
owed by a runoff reinsurer is a big issue, and this clause attempts to address
that problem by avoiding delays that might occur in selecting the arbitration
panel.

The last example is a clause that allows the ceding insurer to forego arbitration
against a runoff reinsurer and, instead, go to court.

Notwithstanding the above, in the event that the dispute or difference of
opinion involves a Runoff Subscribing Reinsurer, the Company may, at its option,
choose to forego arbitration and may bring an action in any court of competent
jurisdiction.

This optional clause gives the ceding insurer flexibility to choose
its forum depending on the status of the runoff reinsurer and the issues in
dispute. By dragging a runoff reinsurer into court, instead of the more genteel
surroundings of traditional reinsurance arbitration, the ceding insurer puts
much more pressure on a nonpaying runoff reinsurer.

Conclusion

As more and more reinsurers go into runoff, more and more ceding insurers
will try to modify their reinsurance contracts to address some of the problems
that arise because of runoff. The examples above merely touch the surface of
the types of creative solutions being employed by ceding insurers and brokers.
The problems ceding insurers face when dealing with runoff reinsurers has prompted
the emergence of creative ways to address a common problem faced by many ceding
insurers. More developments and refinements should be expected in the future.

Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.

Like This Article?

IRMI Update

Dive into thought-provoking industry commentary every other week,
including links to free articles from industry experts. Discover practical
risk management tips, insight on important case law and be the first to
receive important news regarding IRMI products and events.

Featured Products

Quality Risk Management Fieldbook

This step-by-step guide is not a textbook but is the perfect resource
if you lead a small business, nonprofit, government entity, or political
subdivision and do not have risk management expertise or staff.
Everything is included to help you work alongside your insurance agent to
protect and preserve your organization. Learn more.

Glossary of Insurance and Risk Management
Terms

This best-seller from IRMI gives you quick answers to questions
involving unfamiliar insurance terminology. The definitions are written
in plain English with a focus on practical application. Learn more.